HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments APPLICANT 7/3/2007
REESOR David
Cram:
ant:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Farrington, Phil [PFarrington@peacehealth.org]
, Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11 :40 AM
REESOR David
GRILE Bill; Michael M, Reeder (E-mail); Saydack, Roger; Werfelmann, Jim
'East Main site Plan amendment/zone change (LRP 2007-00013, ZON 2007-00012)
Follow up
Red
Date Received'
Planner: DR
i/3/(n
i t
(z P-"7..::.5)
David,
The following are some observations in response to testimony presented by Geoffrey Aguirre
at last night1s hearing.
* Mr. Aguirre said that the applications don't comply with the Metro Plan concerning
initiation of the requested Plan diagram amendment.
Response: The proposal is for a Metro Plan diagram amendment only (no text ,amendment; the'
East Main Refinement Plan diagram changes automatically corresponding to the approval of
the.Metro Plan diagram request), on a site entirely within the Springfield city limtis and
UGB. As such, the amendment is a Type II amendment as defined in SDC 7,070 (2) (a). SDC
7.080 (1) authorizes such Type II amendments to be processed by a single jurisdiction:
the home City, Springfield,
SDC 7.040 (1) (b)l, identifies that a Type II Plan diagram amendment for sites within the
City limits can be initiated by the home city "and citizens." SDC 7.040 (2) (b) states:
"Citizen initiated Type II Metro Plan amendments may be applied for at any time. II
.l.'herefore, Mr. Aguirre was incorrect in suggesting that the proper procedure was not
followed for filing the Plan diagram amendment (or zone change). The proper procedures
were followed according' to the Springfield Development Code, which follows procedures
outlined in the Metro Plan ipp. !V-1 through IV-4)
* Mr. Aguirre indicated that he believed the filing was improper since PeaceHealth was
not an owner of the subject properties at the time of filing, and provisions in SDC
7.010-7,030 were not met, and that Metro Plan policy 4 required property owners to
initiate the application for Plan ,diagram amendment.
Response: SDC 7.010 establishes the Purpose of Metro Plan amendments, and states that the
Metro Plan lIallows citizen initiated Type II Metro Plan amendments to be initiated at any
time." Section 7.020 addresses review of Metro Plan amendments and 7.030 includes
definitions.
Metro Plan Policy 4.b. under the Plan Review element states: "A Type II amendment may be
initiated at the discretion of anyone of the three governing bodies or by any citizen who
owns property that is subject of the proposed amendment." [emphasis added]
But the' fact is that the application forms for the zone change and Metro Plan diagram
amendment were signed by both Andy Head (owner of Tax Lot 402) and Shaun Hyland (owner of
Tax Lot 400), as well as myself as the applicant's representative,
* Mr. Aguirre stated that findings relating to certain East Main RefIn~ment Plan policies
were not applicable, specifically those relative to Mixed Use Area r': \'
'. . \" }
'esponse: The EMRP diagram identifies the subj ect property as bein;/'designated
"ight/Mediurn Industrial. The' applicants seek CC land use designations and zoning.
Insofar as the area immediately west and south of the subject property is identified as
being in Area #2, our narrative and findings addressed EMRP Mixed Use Element Policy #2A
which specifically relates to Area #2. If this policy is not a~plicab1e, then the
1 I
findings relating to this Element is superfluous. Blit it does not invalidate the City's
ability to approve the applications based upon other policies and elements of the EMRP and
other a~plicable approval criteria.
.k Mr, Aguirre stated that the East Main Refinement Plan criteria for Commercial
refinement plan designation were not met because the existing commercial uses located on
Tax Lot 402 were not ,legally create9 and that tax records do not reflect them as legally
established uses.
Response: 'The application narrative and findings addressed each of the criteria for
Commercial Refinement Plan designation established on pige 12 of the EMRP (see pp. 17, 18
of the 3/15/07 application narrative; also found on pp, 3~17 and 3-18 in the attachment to
the Planning Commission's June 5. 2007 hearing packet). Criterion 1.0) states that the
Commercial designation can be applied "where,legally created commercial uses exist." As
noted in, testimony at least night's hearing from Andy Head, owner of Tax Lot 402,.
commercial uses have been located on the site since the 1950s, and the building has been
in its current configuration since at least 1960 (as the air photo he presented to the .
Council illustrated). Its unclear what tax records Mr. Aguirre researched or was
referring to, 'but records from Lane County Assessment'and Taxation ,do not pu~port to be
complete or identify when a given use - particularly commercial uses that go back more
than a half-century - was established, the legality of the use, or whether the use is a
conforming or non-conforming use. The applicant recognizes that the long-standing and
existing commercial uses on Tax Lot 402 are on a site that is zoned and designated LMI
prior to approval of the requested redesignation/zone change. As ,such, prior to approval
of the request, such uses are considered pre-exi?ting non-conforming uses. There was no
evidence submitted into the record to indicate that the commercial uses on-site were not
legally established,
If you have any questions for me, please don't hesitate c~ntacting me.
, ,Philip
Philip Farrington, AICP
Director, Land Use Planning & Development PeaceHealth Oregon Region
123 International Way
Springfield, OR 97477
(541) 686-3828
fax (541) 335-2595
mobile (541) 912-9281
pfarrington@peacehea1th.org <mailto:pfarrington@peacehealth.org>
This message is intended solely for the use of the individual and entity to whom it is
addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable .state and federal "laws. If you are not the addressee, or are
not authorized to receive for'the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you may
not use, copy, distribute, or disclose to anyone this message or the information contained
herein. If you have received this message in error, immediately advise the sender by reply
email and destroy this message.
2